Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meg Johnson (disambiguation)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗ plicit  12:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Meg Johnson (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per WP:ONEOTHER; no other Meg Johnsons to add to this page. – DarkGlow • 22:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 22:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 22:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment there is a Megan Johnson and various people on Margaret Johnson (disambiguation), maybe merge with that DAB? User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 21:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, Margaret would be "Maggie", not "Meg", at least most of the time. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 21:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Margaret has been shortened to lots of things over the years, including Meg, and different usages ni different places. Definitely deserves a listing. There was also an entry that hadn't been added, which I have now done, so it is 3 Megs, and a Megan and Margaret in the see also. 3 valid entries plus 2 valid see alsos is enough to meet the guidelnies - and dabs are cheap. No advantages to readers to deleting this. Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as it stands. I would move the actress to a disambiguated title, given the relative obscurity of the subject. BD2412  T 21:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep perfectly valid dab In ictu oculi (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, the 3rd entry passes DABMENTION and its possible that this might end up at the base name anyway as a result of the RM so I'd put this discussion on hold anyway, I guess we could put the other 2 uses in a hatnote if we conclude that there is a primary topic though.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.